See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5809908

Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct: Evidence from ORI Case

Files

Article  in  Science and Engineering Ethics · June 2008

DOI: 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

94 968

3 authors:

Mark S Davis Michelle Riske-Morris

The Ohio State University Case Western Reserve University
41 PUBLICATIONS   503 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sebastian Diaz
American Military University
34 PUBLICATIONS   1,171 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Scholarly Crimes and Misdemeanors View project

Foodmaster View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sebastian Diaz on 25 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sci Eng Ethics (2007) 13:395–414
DOI 10.1007/s11948-007-9045-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct:

Evidence from ORI Case Files

Mark S. Davis Æ Michelle Riske-Morris Æ

Sebastian R. Diaz

Received: 30 January 2006 / Accepted: 30 October 2007 / Published online: 24 November 2007

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract There has been relatively little empirical research into the causes of
research misconduct. To begin to address this void, the authors collected data from
closed case files of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). These data were in the
form of statements extracted from ORI file documents including transcripts,
investigative reports, witness statements, and correspondence. Researchers assigned
these statements to 44 different concepts. These concepts were then analyzed using
multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. The authors chose a solution con-
sisting of seven clusters: (1) personal and professional stressors, (2) organizational
climate, (3) job insecurities, (4) rationalizations A, (5) personal inhibitions, (6)
rationalizations B and, (7) personality factors. The authors discuss the implications
of their findings for policy and for future research.

Keywords Research integrity
Research misconduct

Responsible conduct of research

There has been a groundswell of scholarly interest in research integrity over the past
two decades. Part of this is undoubtedly due to well-publicized cases of misconduct
involving some of the most prominent research institutions in the world. More
recently, some of the interest may also stem from the extramural research program

M. S. Davis (&)
Criminal Justice Research Center, The Ohio State University, 147 Journalism Building, 242 West
18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
e-mail: davis.198@sociology.osu.edu

M. Riske-Morris
Justice Research & Advocacy, Inc., Amherst, OH, USA

S. R. Diaz
College of Human Resources and Education, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA

123
396 M. S. Davis et al.

of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which is supported by several branches of

the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and which annually funds a number of
studies on various aspects of research integrity. The body of empirical research in
this area covers a broad array of perspectives and is growing at an impressive rate.
Despite the increase in research on research misconduct, relatively few studies
have addressed its causes. This is curious inasmuch as substantial resources are
being devoted to the development of conferences and curricula designed to train
individuals in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). The available anecdotal
evidence on the contours of research misconduct, as weak as it may be, does indeed
inform policy [1]. But it stands to reason that policies intended to prevent and
control research misconduct would be more effective if informed by a more
thorough understanding of the problem’s etiology.
In defense of those charged with formulating and carrying out policies on the
responsible conduct of research, they cannot wait for definitive answers about the
causes of research misconduct any more than a physician would hesitate to treat the
symptoms of a patient’s unidentified disease. Legions of new scientists are
continually being trained, and it is reasonable to acquaint them with research norms
and the consequences of their violation early in their training programs, regardless
of whether ignorance of such norms actually underlies instances of research
misconduct.

What are the Purported Causes of Research Misconduct?

There has been a great deal of speculation about the causes of research misconduct.
One way to organize the discussion of the literature regarding the alleged causes is
to use the categories offered by Mark Davis [2]: individual, situational, organiza-
tional, structural and cultural factors.

Individual Factors

According to Rebecca Dresser, ‘‘Researchers who deviate from fundamental

scientific norms with awareness that they are doing so are deemed most responsible
for their behavior and thus most deserving of condemnation.’’ [3, p. 5] Regardless of
any other factors said to be wholly or partially responsible for research misconduct,
it is the individual who stands accused in actual cases. The individual’s research
activities are put under scrutiny by the institution in which the alleged misconduct
occurred, as well as by federal agencies if the research in question has federal
sponsorship. Upon a finding of scientific misconduct, the respondent (as the
individual accused of research misconduct is referred to by the ORI) is subject to a
variety of consequences including debarment. So it is appropriate, although perhaps
to some unduly reductionistic, for analyses of etiology to include the individual
level of analysis. John Long, who testified about his own misconduct before a
Congressional subcommittee in the 1980s, stated:

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 397

I do not believe that the environment in which I work was responsible for what
I have done. Competition for limited research funds among research
investigators is a necessary part of federally funded scientific work. Neither
this, nor competition for major awards in science, can be implicated as an
important factor in my particular instance. An honest investigator should be
able to deal effectively with the traditional ‘publish or perish’ pressures… The
loss of my ability to be an objective scientist…cannot…be linked to defects in
the system under which I worked (quoted in [4]).
A number of analysts attribute research misconduct at least in part to the mental
or emotional state of the accused [5–9]. Those who would fabricate data, plagiarize
the work of another, or engage in similar practices, as the reasoning goes, cannot be
in their right minds. One physician-scientist in the United Kingdom, who was
investigated by the General Medical Council for research misconduct, was said in a
psychiatrist’s report to be suffering from depression at the time of the incident [10].
‘If it was not for the mental state I was in,’ the respondent stated, ‘I would never
have done something like this.’ Douglas Weed, however, has suggested that this
type of excuse may simply be used to avoid taking responsibility [9]. This pattern of
accused scientists pointing to poor mental state is believed to be a recurring one
[11].
William James flatly asserts that ‘[s]ome scientists are psychopaths...’ [6]. This
opinion seems to coincide with that of Efraim Racker who observes that research
misconduct ‘…springs from an unbalanced mind. Perhaps as with most professional
criminals they are emotionally and mentally ill, often seeking self-destruction.’ [12,
p. 91]
Closely related to mental state is the personality of the accused. According to the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fourth Edition (DSM-IV),
mental health professionals’ primary source of wisdom about personalities:
Personality traits are enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking
about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social
and personal contexts. Only when personality traits are inflexible and
maladaptive and cause significant functional impairment or subjective distress
do they constitute personality disorders [13].
The personality traits of ego, vanity and self-aggrandizement mentioned by a
number of observers [8, 9, 14–18] bring to mind narcissism, particularly its more
socially maladaptive forms. In their comprehensive review of factors related to
professional integrity, including those at the individual-level, Michael Mumford and
Whitney Helton found evidence that narcissism is related to a lack of personal
integrity [19]. One particular aspect of narcissistic personalities, a sense of
entitlement, was found by Mark Davis, Kelly Wester and Bridgett King to be
significantly related to doctoral students’ likelihood of engaging in various
questionable research practices [20]. So the professional impressions that certain
narcissistic personality traits underlie research misconduct have at least some
empirical support.

123
398 M. S. Davis et al.

It has been argued that some cases of research misconduct arise out of a
‘messianic complex,’ that is, an individual’s belief in a particular theory or line of
inquiry [7]. Why should researchers who firmly believe they are right go to the
trouble of actually conducting the research [21]? There is some evidence that this
syndrome may be responsible for at least some instances of research misconduct. In
his testimony before Congress, John Long told the committee that ‘…part of the
problem was that I had tremendous faith in the cell lines. I had worked so hard on
them that I believed they were the real thing (quoted in [22]).’ Cyril Burt, the
famous British psychologist who many believe faked most of the data upon which
he based his conclusions about the inheritability of intelligence, is said to have
suffered from this syndrome. ‘If a real scientist is one who wants to discover the
truth,’ write William Broad and Nicholas Wade, ‘Burt was no scientist, because he
already knew the truth.’ [11].
In one of the earlier surveys designed to assess the contours of research
misconduct, June Tangney asked her subjects to speculate about possible
contributing factors [18]. Thirty-one percent of her sample felt that a firm belief
or desire to promote a theory might underlie research misconduct. Another factor
cited by her respondents was the belief that one’s theory or data are right, as ill-
founded as it might be.

Situational Factors

Like members of the general population, even fundamentally honest researchers can
find themselves in trying circumstances that can test one’s ability to deal with
pressure/capacity to cope. The loss of loved ones, relationship problems including
separation and divorce, and financial pressures all have the potential of contributing
to the compromising of quality research. Although these factors have received less
attention in the literature as possible causal factors, a few commentators (e.g.,
Marion Broome [14] and Ruby Morrison [23]) have mentioned them.
Mark Davis and Michelle Riske note that some of those who had been found
guilty of scientific misconduct expressed that they had been experiencing family and
other personal difficulties at the time of their involvement [24]. These difficulties
included, but were not limited to:

• Loss of family members

• New baby
• Emotional difficulties due to a relationship breakup
• Wife’s complicated pregnancy
• Son diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and Conduct Disorder
• Parents’ disappointment over respondent not getting into medical school
• After purchasing a new home, respondent’s salary was cut
There is evidence, then, that situational factors belong on the list of potential
etiological factors underlying research misconduct. One has to wonder, though,
whether these situational factors, much like mental and emotional problems, might

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 399

be used by those who are caught as a means of avoiding responsibility for their own
actions.

Organizational Factors

The environments in which scientists conduct their work are said to be conducive to
research misconduct [14]. While this influence is distinct from what inheres in the
individual [25], the two levels can interact [19]. It has been argued that institutions
have an obligation to create an atmosphere that promotes the responsible conduct of
research [26].
The nature of interpersonal relationships within an organization has been pointed
to as one pertinent element of the organizational culture. Morrison suggests that the
closeness of the relationship between supervisor and subordinate is important with
regard to research misconduct [23]. Problems in such a relationship, however, may
take the form of inadequate supervision and mentoring of inexperienced researchers
[4], including graduate students [27].
In a comprehensive review of the literature dealing with various correlates of
integrity, Mumford and Helton set forth a number of propositions grounded in the
empirical literature on organizations [19]. While these propositions derive from the
literature on integrity in general, they provide a rich set of testable statements for
those interested in research on research misconduct.

Structural Factors

Those speculating about the causes of research misconduct place a great deal of the
burden on the way modern science works. Certain characteristics of the scientific
enterprise within the academic setting are said to lend themselves to departures from
the norms of science as practiced in the U. S. Most notable among these is the
dreaded ‘publish-or-perish’ pressure under which faculty researchers must operate
[4, 7, 8, 23, 28–32]. Tenure-track faculty in research institutions are commonly
judged by the quantity and quality of published articles and abstracts. Those who
fall short of this expectation often lose their prospects of a permanent position.
Failing to publish can also affect their chances of securing funding for their
research. This places a substantial amount of pressure on researchers, especially
young, untenured investigators, to get their research findings into print.
The publish-or-perish pressure can be considered structural because it pervades
academic science. It may not, however, be an immutable pressure. Tom Jefferson
contends that academic institutions need only consider a small number of the
candidate’s papers, thereby eliminating the incentive to engage in misconduct in
order to generate large numbers of publications [29].
The publish-or-perish pressure, while admittedly important, cannot be disentan-
gled from the tenure and promotion process. Tenure, which represents academic job
security, and promotion, which translates into advancement and greater financial
rewards, are both embedded in the structure of academic science. These two facets

123
400 M. S. Davis et al.

of professional life within research institutions are considered by many to be

responsible for research misconduct [5, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 27, 33, 34].
Publish-or-perish pressure, which is closely related to the desire to achieve tenure
and promotion, leads to intense competition. This competition is also thought to
account for at least some instances of research misconduct [4, 9, 14, 23, 35–38].
Academic scientists, according to David Goodstein, ‘…are more like players in an
intense, winner-take-all competition for scientific prestige and the resources that
follow from that prestige.’ [21]. R. Illingworth, like other commentators, suggests
that this competition is capable of distorting one’s perception of what is ethically
acceptable [39].

Cultural Factors

Although very little work has been undertaken on the role of culture in research
misconduct, it has been observed that some researchers from abroad might be
susceptible to unique pressures to deviate from science’s norms [2]. Further,
individuals moving from one culture to another necessarily bring with them the
norms of the specific culture in which they were socialized. Thus culture is yet
another factor which potentially could increase the probability that an instance of
research misconduct will occur.
In their review of 16 allegations of questionable research practices, Walter
Meyer, III and George Bernier, Jr. found that foreign personnel were overrepre-
sented among the accused [40]. It should be noted that their sample, derived from
only one research institution, does not permit any valid inferences. Nevertheless,
future research examining the relationship between culture and the understanding
and perception of scientific norms would be a worthwhile addition to the field.
Questionable authorship practices, which do not constitute research misconduct
per se, may be uniquely vulnerable to departures from accepted standards by those
from abroad. According to Anne Hudson Jones, some young scientists-in-training
may operate with the understanding that their mentors from their countries of origin
expect to be included as co-authors on publications generated in the U.S. [41].
While this clearly represents gift authorship, which has been disapproved by
virtually all organizations addressing the responsible conduct of research, it is
understandable that researchers from abroad could find themselves in an untenable
situation. Whether or not this is actually a widespread expectation, such a dilemma
would seem especially problematic for young scientists-in-training who intend to
return to their respective countries of origin.
Although there has been a great deal of speculation about the causes of research
misconduct, few of these observations are empirically grounded. The purpose of this
study is to help fill that void. Specifically, this study is an attempt to identify the
causes of research misconduct as perceived by those against whom a finding of
scientific misconduct was made. In particular, this paper presents the results of a
study using data extracted from ORI case files to identify the factors implicated in
research misconduct, and includes a discussion of the implications of these findings
for both future research and policy on the responsible conduct of research.

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 401

Research Design

Subjects

The subjects for the current study are individuals against whom a finding of
scientific misconduct was made by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) as of
December 2000. The criterion for the sample was only those cases classified as
‘closed’ by the ORI. Cases that were processed and closed by the ORI’s predecessor
agency, the Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI), were not used in the analysis.
Demographic data including gender, age and ethnicity were not collected from the
case files and therefore were not available for analysis. The sample is purposive and
does not permit inferences to any population other than those against whom a
finding of scientific misconduct was made by the ORI for the period in question.
Each respondent’s file constituted a case study in and of itself which offered
insights distinct from the others. This differs from purely quantitative research
which aims for large numbers of subjects, and where selection is devoid of context
and statistical significance is sought [42, 43]. Although small by quantitative
research standards, this group of cases is ‘information rich’ in that the respondents
were selected because they exemplify characteristics of interest [44], in this case,
those found of scientific misconduct. Accordingly, this sampling strategy provided a
wealth of detailed information that offers the potential of contributing to
understanding of research misconduct, despite its limitations in generalizability
[45]. Cases were excluded from the analyses if they failed to yield information
relating to etiology.

Data Collection

An instrument was developed for the systematic collection of information through

the review of case files. It included information about the type of misconduct, who
made the allegation, the formal investigation and findings by the institution, the
respondent’s response to the allegation, or other circumstances surrounding the
incident, as well as the formal administrative action by the ORI.
A pilot study of respondents who had cases closed by the OSI was performed to
test the utility of the data collection instrument to be used for the case file reviews.
Although the OSI differed substantially from the ORI, the research team considered
the case file materials similar enough to use the OSI cases for the pretest. For the
pretest 15 case files were reviewed. The instrument was deemed adequate for
collecting the data required for this project.
Information included in the case files was drawn primarily from investigation
reports submitted by the universities, as well as information contained in ORI
reports, correspondence, transcripts from the hearings, and other evidence submitted
by the parties pertaining to the charge of scientific misconduct.1

1
This information included fact-finding procedures, hearings, testimony, counter-allegations, evidence,
the authority and manner of decision making, and appeal procedures.

123
402 M. S. Davis et al.

The first step in the data analysis process employed a strategy adopted from
phenomenological research wherein the textual material is scanned for statements or
phrases which could explain why the misconduct occurred or possible consequences
as a result of the misconduct. Rather than searching for evidence of specific theories
or propositions, the investigator examines the data more for explication than
explanation [46].
Once the data were collected from the files at the ORI, two different coders
extracted phrases that conveyed causal factors implicated in research misconduct.
As a check against possible bias created by prior knowledge or other factors, the
analyst extracted verbatim phrases rather than interpreted or paraphrased concepts.
The second analyst approached the data in the same manner, identifying exact
wording thought to convey possible causes of research misconduct. The statements
or phrases pulled from the instrument were recorded on index cards. The two
analysts then compared and reconciled their lists. Any discrepancies were resolved
by the research team so that items were coded in a consistent fashion.
Because most of the information gleaned from the case file review is akin to
hearsay in the legal sense, except for information contained in transcripts or
correspondence from the respondent, the data were interpreted with caution.
Hearsay, for these purposes, is defined as statements based upon the reports of
others [47]. Thus statements only suggest possible factors implicated in research
misconduct and should not be considered as the official cause of the misconduct.
The researchers did not record the names of the respondents nor did they capture
demographic or other data which would permit identification of individuals. The
project was reviewed and approved by Justice Research and Advocacy’s Institu-
tional Review Board.

Methods of Analysis

After all of the statements were extracted from the case file reviews, the research
team then grouped the statements which were similar and assigned a label or
‘concept’ in order to better classify the statements, such as ‘pressure to produce.’ A
total of 44 concepts were generated in this manner. Statements identified with each
concept were also separated into (A) those statements that were attributed to the
subject, and (B) statements made by others about the respondent.
To explain patterns in the data, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis was
employed. The combined use of these techniques is borrowed from the Concept
Mapping/Pattern Matching (CMPM) methodology. Concept mapping is a type of
structured conceptualization which can be used by groups to develop a conceptual
framework which can guide evaluation or planning [48].
Although reliability for CMPM has been well-established, its calculation departs
from conventional test theory in which there are either correct or incorrect answers.
Because these do not exist for CMPM, reliability focuses on the consistency of the
maps produced as opposed to the individual items [49]. Overall, research on the
reliability of CMPM has focused on two primary efforts: (1) providing an accurate
representation of what people were thinking, and; (2) integrating the concept maps into
scientific theory building and experimentation [50]. Pattern matching itself is used as a

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 403

methodology for establishing reliability and validity [51, 52], and has been used to
help clarify phenomena as varied as feminism [53], model transfer in psychiatric
rehabilitation [54], and social technologies related to in-home health services [55].
William Trochim’s CMPM methodology involves six steps: (1) Preparation; (2)
Generation of Statements; (3) Structuring of Statements; (4) Representation of
Statements; (5) Interpretation of Maps, and; (6) Utilization of Maps [48]. These
steps are described below, in turn, as they are used in a modified fashion for this
particular study.

Step 1: Preparation

In other more traditional uses of CMPM, the investigator chooses who will participate
in the process, and then works with them to decide on a particular focus for the
conceptualization. This study was an attempt to create a conceptualization that helps
clarify the causal patterns inherent in instances of research misconduct. In this study,
the investigators chose participants indirectly by focusing on closed ORI case files.

Step 2: Generation of Statements

A more conventional use of the CMPM methodology would involve preparing a

research or evaluation question, and then gathering a group of stakeholders to
identify individual items that address that question. For example, if this study were
conducted in a fashion consistent with most CMPM studies, the investigators would
have convened a group of stakeholders who are experts on research misconduct, and
then asked these individuals, ‘What are the factors or causes that lead to research
misconduct?’ This study deviates from that conventional approach, a deviation we
believe enhances the objectivity of the CMPM process. Rather than asking experts
to identify via a focus group those factors associated with research misconduct [56],
evidence from the ORI case files was used to identify codes that help explain
research misconduct.

Step 3: Structuring of Statements

In the more conventional approach alluded to above, stakeholders would be asked to

individually sort the items (i.e., codes) identified into meaningful piles, and then
multidimensional scaling would be used to find the aggregate sort. In this study, the
meaningful piles are created by examining actual instances of research misconduct
in the ORI case files, and identifying the codes inherent in each. As mentioned
previously, these codes help identify possible explanations for research misconduct
in a particular case file. For example, a particular case file might hypothetically
contain three of the 44 codes: (1) pressure to produce; (2) personal problems, and;
(3) insufficient supervision. Therefore, rather than asking stakeholders to speculate
on which codes belong with one another, the ORI case files of real world examples

123
404 M. S. Davis et al.

of research misconduct provide data for the relative association among the 44
identified concepts (i.e., codes).
Multidimensional scaling was used to generate a two-dimensional plot that
illustrates the conceptual proximities among the 44 codes, based on the frequencies
with which they occurred together within individual case files. Cluster analysis was
then used to spatially clarify these relationships.

Steps 4 and 5: Representation of Statements and Interpretation of Maps

In this study, ‘statements’ are synonymous with the codes identified in the ORI case
files. The two-dimensional concept map produced via multidimensional scaling and
the subsequent cluster analyses are then interpreted to help guide future theory
development on the topic of research misconduct.

Step 6: Utilization of Maps

The concept map developed in this study can be utilized by scholars and
practitioners to develop more grounded and evidence-based approaches to
investigating the phenomenon of research misconduct. Although this study does
not attempt to provide a definitive explanation of how research misconduct occurs in
all cases, the concept map developed serves as a tool to help guide future
investigations into this phenomenon.

Results

A total of 104 individual case files were reviewed, 12 of which contained no

information on etiology and were therefore excluded from the analysis. A plurality
of respondents held the position of research assistant/associate or technician (24%),
13% were associate professors, 13% were postdoctoral fellows, 12% were assistant
professors, 12% were graduate students, 9% were professors or head of department
and the remaining 17% were categorized as ‘other.’ A plurality of the respondents
had also earned a Ph.D. (38%), 16% had earned an M.D, 7% had combined degrees
of Ph.D. and M.D., 22% were categorized as ‘other,’ and for 17% of the
respondents, the information on educational level was not available.
The forms of misconduct committed by the respondents included plagiarism,
falsification, fabrication, and combinations of the three with falsification/fabrication
being the most common. The majority of the cases were for either falsification
(39%) or a combination of fabrication and falsification (37%).
From the 92 individual case files, concepts were attributed either to the
respondents or to others who made comments about the respondents. The number of
concepts per respondent varied. Some respondents had as few as one concept, while
others had up to 15 concepts. Based on this review, 44 concepts were identified in
the case files and labeled sequentially from 1 to 44. Each particular case file, then,

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 405

was labeled with one or more of these concepts that identify possible explanations
for the research misconduct that took place. Hereafter, these concepts will be
referred to as ‘factors implicated in research misconduct.’
The average number of explanations for research misconduct identified in a
particular case file was approximately 4 (mean = 3.8, s.d. = 3.0, range 1–15). The
frequency with which individual explanations for research misconduct were
identified among all case files ranged from 1 to 47 times (mean = 11.8,
s.d. = 10.8).
Multidimensional scaling was used to generate a two-dimensional proximity
matrix which illustrates the perceived aggregate relationships among the 44 factors
implicated in research misconduct. A dissimilarity matrix identifying the frequency
with which explanations for research misconduct coexisted within case files was
used to enter the data. Multidimensional scaling using SPSS 13.0 [57] yielded
coordinates for each of the 44 factors implicated in research misconduct as shown in
Figs. 1, 2.
The factors implicated in research misconduct, each labeled with their respective
identifiers ranging from 1 to 44, are contained in this plot. The distance between any
two points illustrates the relative relationship of coincidence between these two
points. For example, at the top center of the plot, explanations for research
misconduct #16 (competition for position) and #3 (inappropriate responsibility) lie
close together. Their proximity suggests that throughout the individual case files,
these two factors implicated in research misconduct coexisted with relatively high
frequency. On the other hand, factor #16 lies relatively far from factor #35 (avoid
degradation) located at the bottom center of the plot. This greater distance suggests
that throughout the case files these two factors implicated in research misconduct
coexisted with relatively low frequency.

Fig. 1 Two-dimensional plot of the 44 concepts

123
406 M. S. Davis et al.

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Pressure to Produce 1
Pressure on Self/Over-Committed 18
Supervisor Expectations 9
Denial of Negative Intent 40
Cognitive Deficiency 2
Poor Judgment/Carelessness 22
Stress/Pressure in General 7
Overworked/Insufficient Time 14
Denial of an Injury 36
Personal Problems 29
Psychological Problems 30
Lack of Support System 12
Personal Insecurities 20
Stressful Job 8
Desire to Succeed/Please 19
Insecure Position 17
Insufficient Supervision/Mentoring 10
Non-collegial Work Environment 11
Professional Conflicts 6
Substandard Lab Procedures 13
Reliance on Others/Permission 41
Condemnation of the Condemner 44
Poor Communication/Coordination 15
Lost/Stolen/Discarded Data 39
Jumping the Gun 25
Lie to Preserve the Truth 37
Lack of Control 23
Inappropriate Responsibility 3
Competition for Position 16
Poor Supervisor (Respondent) 5
Language Barrier 32
Character Flaw 31
Recognition 34
Laziness 27
Impatient 24
Public Good Over Science 38
Amnesia 43
Difficult Job/Tasks 4
Frustrated 26
Restoring Equity 33
Slippery Slope 42
Fear 21
Avoid Degradation 35
Apathy/Dislike/Desire to Leave 28

Fig. 2 Dendogram of the 44 concepts

The significance of these distances illustrated in Fig. 1 is based on an assumption

that when different factors implicated in research misconduct coexist repeatedly
among individual case files, they collectively represent a larger construct that might
help investigators explore the phenomenon of interest, research misconduct in this
case. To examine these constructs further, cluster analysis was used to determine
which subsets of the 44 factors implicated in research misconduct might be
combined to create new categories of research misconduct causes.
Cluster analysis, again using SPSS 13.0 [57], yielded the following dendrogram
based on the Euclidian distances among the 44 factors implicated in research
misconduct.
This dendrogram, when read from right to left, illustrates how the 44 factors
implicated in research misconduct can be broken up into smaller clusters, ranging
from two clusters up to 44 clusters. Choosing the number of clusters that is most
representative and meaningful is somewhat subjective. However, the horizontal
distance between successive cluster solutions is one criterion available to
researchers for informing this subjective choice. A greater horizontal distance
suggests a more definitive cut-off.

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 407

The 44 factors identified can be grouped into the 7-clusters illustrated in Table 1
by alternating italics. The utility of the 7-cluster solution can be further enhanced by
labeling each of the clusters.

Cluster 1—Personal and Professional Stressors

The 13 items (8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 29, 30, 36, & 40) comprising this
particular cluster seem to relate to stressors in the respondents’ work environment
and in their personal lives. Items such as Pressure to Produce, Overworked/
Insufficient Time, and Stressful Job point to stressors that are more work-related.
Some items point to stressors that are much more personal in nature (e.g., Personal
Problems, Psychological Problems). Other items, however, seem to bridge both
personal and professional issues (e.g., Pressure on Self/Overcommitted, Lack of
Support System, Stress/Pressure in General). Together, these items seem to point to
more micro-level stressors that might contribute to research misconduct.

Cluster 2—Organizational Climate Factors

Eight items (6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 39, 41, & 44) comprise the second cluster, which
seems to be related to issues of organizational climate. Professional Conflicts,
Insufficient Supervision/Mentoring, Poor Communication/Coordination, & Non-
collegial Work Environment all seem to relate to factors inherent in an individual’s
particular place of work. Other items such as Substandard Lab Procedures and Lost/
Stolen/Discarded Data might be related to either characteristics of individual
employees, characteristics of the particular work place, or both. In general, these
items seem to point to aspects of the particular organizational climate in which
research misconduct took place.

Cluster 3—Job Insecurities

Four items (3, 5, 16, & 32) comprise a cluster related to job insecurities.
Inappropriate Responsibility, Poor Supervisor, and Competition for Position are
items that seem to point to work situations in which the researcher might be hesitant
to ask for guidance given their perception of tenuous job security. Another item in
this cluster, Language Barrier, might include situations wherein a researcher fails to
ask for assistance for fear of being perceived as inadequate due to low proficiency in
spoken or written English. Together, these items point to factors due to a perception
of job insecurity on the part of the researcher/employee.

Cluster 4—Rationalizations A

Three items (23, 25, & 37) comprise this cluster which seems to be related to
rationalizations that might be offered by the individual who was accused of

123
408 M. S. Davis et al.

Table 1 Final clusters and

1:Pressure to Produce
concepts
2:Cognitive Deficiency
7:Stress/Pressure in General
9:Supervisor Expectations
12:Lack of Support System
14:Overworked/Insufficient Time
18:Pressure on Self/Over-committed
20:Personal Insecurities
22:Poor Judgment/Carelessness
29:Personal Problems
30:Psychological Problems
36:Denial of an Injury
40:Denial of Negative Intent
8:Stressful Job
17:Insecure Position
19:Desire to Succeed/Please
6:Professional Conflicts
10:Insufficient Supervision/Mentoring
11:Non-collegial Work Environment
13:Substandard Lab Procedures
15:Poor Communication/Coordination
39:Lost/Stolen/Discarded Data
41:Reliance on Others/Permission
44:Condemnation of the Condemnors
3:Inappropriate Responsibility
5:Poor Supervisor (Respondent)
16:Competition for Position
32:Language Barrier
23:Lack of Control
25:Jumping the Gun
37:Lie to Preserve the Truth
4:Difficult Job/Tasks
26:Frustrated
21:Fear
28:Apathy/Dislike/Desire to Leave
33:Restoring Equity
35:Avoid Degradation
42:Slippery Slope
24:Impatient
38:Public Good Over Science
43:Amnesia
27:Laziness
31:Character Flaw
34:Recognition

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 409

engaging in the particular misconduct. Lack of Control Over One’s Environment,

Jumping the Gun to Disseminate Findings, and Lying in Order to Preserve the Truth
seem to point to factors where a person guilty of misconduct might try to justify his
or her actions through rationalizations.

Cluster 5—Personal Inhibitions

This cluster is the smallest of all clusters, containing only two items (4, & 26).
Difficult Job/Task and Frustrations are factors which seem to be work-related
frustrations due less to the work environment and more to limitations of the
individual.

Cluster 6—Rationalizations B

Cluster 4 dealt with three particular factors related to rationalizations. Although the
items in Cluster 6 yielded a separate factor in the cluster analysis, these items (21,
28, 33, 35, & 42), much like those in Cluster 4, seem to relate to rationalizations
offered by individuals responsible for research misconduct. These factors included:
Fear, Apathy/Dislike, Restoring Equity, Avoiding Degradation by Others, and
Slippery Slope.

Cluster 7—Personality Factors

This cluster is comprised of six items (24, 27, 31, 34, 38, & 43) related to particular
personality factors that generally may be perceived as weaknesses in character.
Impatience, Amnesia, Laziness, Character Flaw, and Personal Need for Recognition
all point to personality factors that, in general, are viewed negatively. Choosing
Public Good over Science can also be viewed as a personality factor since it seems
indicative of dogma that can compromise the integrity of the scientific process, thus
resulting in research misconduct.
Cluster analysis, then, is useful in helping to define the structure of the causal
factors implicated in research misconduct. To further help visualize the structures
inherent in the data, the results of the cluster analysis may be combined with the
results of the multidimensional scaling to produce a concept map of the 7-cluster
solution.
The schematic in Fig. 3 illustrates some characteristics of the 7-cluster solution
chosen for this study. For example, the 13 items comprising Cluster 1—Personal
and Professional Stressors are clustered relatively close to one another as compared
to other clusters. In contrast, Cluster 7—Personality Factors, is comprised of less
than half the number of items (n = 7) and yet occupies approximately the same
amount of space on the two-dimensional map. Obviously, then, researchers
attempting to find patterns or structures in the data that might help define new
phenomena in the study of research misconduct might place more confidence in

123
410 M. S. Davis et al.

Cluster 3 - Job
Insecurities

Cluster 4 - Rationalizations A Cluster 2 - Organizational

Climate Factors

Cluster 1 - Personal &

Professional Stressors
Cluster 6 - Rationalizations B

Cluster 5 - Personal
Cluster 7 - Personality Inhibitions
Factors

Fig. 3 Final 7 clusters in two-dimensional space

those ‘tighter’ clusters more easily defined by numerous explanations, and therefore
have less confidence in those clusters composed of more dispersed data.
Another characteristic revealed by the schematic concerns the relative positions
of each of the clusters in the two-dimensional plot. The individual items in Cluster
2—Organizational Climate Factors, therefore, appear to be much more closely
related to Clusters 1 and 3 than they are to Cluster 6, given the relative Euclidian
distances between clusters. As investigators study the geometric proximities of these
clusters, they may choose to subjectively combine clusters that lie very close to one
another.

Discussion and Conclusions

The results of data reduction techniques make it possible to identify seven groups of
causal factors implicated in research misconduct. The first group, Personal and
Professional Stressors, includes not only structural factors such as publish-or-perish
pressure, but also a variety of situational stressors that may attenuate researchers’
abilities to conduct research with integrity.
A second group, Organizational Climate Factors, concerns not only the larger
organization, but also what has been referred to as group-level factors [19], those
which characterize the environment of the laboratory. These factors reinforce the
argument that institutions such as universities and smaller units within those
institutions may play an indirect role by creating an atmosphere that facilitates
misconduct through various forms of alienation.
Next are Job Insecurity Factors that inhere more in the individual than in his or
her work environment. These could be interpreted as weaknesses in the respondent’s

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 411

ability to withstand what may well be ordinary work pressures which other
researchers learn to handle effectively.
Two factors, both of which address a variety of rationalizations offered by ORI
respondents, are labeled Rationalization A and B, respectively. It seems that once
offending researchers are caught, they tend to offer reasons for their behavior, many
of which externalize the blame to others. These are similar to what Gresham Sykes
and David Matza termed techniques of neutralization, which are formulated in
advance of engaging in the deviant behavior [58]. There was evidence of denial of
an injury, denial of responsibility and condemnation of the condemners. Due to the
limitations of the data, it is not possible to know whether respondents formulated
these rationalizations before they engaged in research misconduct or only after they
were caught.
One unique contribution of this study is that it made use of attributions found in
actual case files of research misconduct. Data from cases in which individuals were
found to have committed scientific misconduct offer insights different from other
methodologies such as surveys that call for subjects’ opinions on why research
misconduct occurs. This research was limited in that it only examined information
contained within the case files for individuals who have had a finding of research
misconduct by ORI. Nevertheless, these data help to further understanding of
research misconduct, especially why those involved in it believe it occurs. Future
research might explore causal factors implicated in cases in which research
misconduct was alleged but not found by ORI. Also of interest would be instances
of research misconduct investigated by administrative bodies other than the ORI.
Another contribution of this study is the application of the CMPM methodology.
Previously, there were few systematic efforts to make empirical sense of causal
factors implicated in research misconduct. The CMPM methodology makes it
possible to spatially and graphically link explanations that coexist in real cases. This
in turn not only allows refinement of theoretical explanations based on actual cases,
but it also may help policy makers use these imputed causes as they propose
changes in practices and procedures.
The results of this study may also be of interest to those charged with training and
education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Courses designed to train
research staff in the responsible conduct of research typically address the ORI’s nine
core areas [59]. Few would argue that such training is important, but what is lacking
is sufficient attention to the causal factors that underlie irresponsible conduct.
Consequently, web-based instructional modules might include segments addressing
the structural realities of scientific research and how they indeed create pressures on
the individual researcher to deviate from the responsible conduct of research.
Accompanying this might be a list of proven, accepted strategies for managing these
pressures.
Closely related to RCR education and training is the need to take steps to increase
the awareness about employee assistance programs for all research staff, but
particularly for researchers whose lives are known to include multiple stressors.
Mid-level research managers could easily be trained to be aware of various stressors
their subordinates face, as well as the implications that poorly managed stress can
have for the individual researcher and the research environment.

123
412 M. S. Davis et al.

This study also points to areas for future research. One possibility would be to
employ more fully Trochim’s CMPM methodology to determine the explanations
for research misconduct by convening a group of stakeholders who would identify
potential explanations for research misconduct. Each stakeholder would then
individually structure the items, and rate them on relative importance. It would be
interesting to compare and contrast how these stakeholders collectively structure
possible explanations for research misconduct as compared to the results of this
study.
Research on factors related to the irresponsible conduct of research can and
eventually will have an impact on policy and practice. Evidence-based practice in
such areas as health, child welfare and delinquency prevention have proven the
value of linking etiological studies to preventive strategies.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by a contract awarded to Justice Research &
Advocacy, Inc. by the Office of Research Integrity. The findings and conclusions reported herein are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Office of Research Integrity, the Office
of Public Health and Science, or the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. The authors would
like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for numerous helpful comments and suggestions.

References

1. LaFollette, M. C. (1994). Research misconduct. Society, 31(3), 6–10.

2. Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 11(3),
189–201.
3. Dresser, R. (1993). Defining scientific misconduct: The relevance of mental state. JAMA, 269(7),
895–897.
4. Woolf, P. (1981). Fraud in science. The Hastings Center Report, 11(5), 9–14.
5. Berg, A. O. (1990). Misconduct in science: Does family medicine have a problem? Family Medicine,
22(2), 137–142.
6. James, W. (1995). Fraud and hoaxes in science. Nature, 377(6549), 474.
7. Lock, S. (1997). Fraud in medical research. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London,
31(1), 90–94.
8. Royal College of Physicians (1991). Fraud and misconduct in medical research: causes, investigation
and prevention. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 25(2), 89–94.
9. Weed, D. (1998). Preventing scientific misconduct. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 125–
129.
10. Dyer, O. (2004). Doctor fabricated research while depressed. BMJ Careers, 329(7473), 996.
11. Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the truth. New York: Simon & Schuster.
12. Racker, E. (1989). A view of misconduct in science. Science, 339(6220), 91–93.
13. American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders,
Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
14. Broome, M. E. (2003). Scientific integrity. Nursing Outlook, 51(5), 197–198.
15. Chop, R. M., & Silva, M. C. (1991). Scientific fraud: definitions, policies and implications for nursing
research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 7(3), 166–171.
16. Jay, P. (1999). Research misconduct – have we reached a turning point at last? Science and Engi-
neering Ethics, 5(1), 119–122.
17. Lock, S. (1994). Research misconduct: a brief history and a comparison. Journal of Internal Med-
icine, 235(2), 123–127.
18. Tangney, J. P. (1987). Fraud will out – or will it? New Scientist, 115(1572), 62.
19. Mumford, M. D., & Helton, W. B. (2002). Organizational influences on scientific integrity. In N. H.
Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of the first ORI
research conference on research integrity. Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity.

123
Causal Factors Implicated in Research Misconduct 413

20. Davis, M. S., Wester, K. L., & King, B. (In press). Ethical compromises in counseling research: A
pilot study of prevalence and correlates. Journal of Counseling & Development.
21. Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct. Academe, 88(1), 18–21.
22. Fuchs, S., & Westervelt, S. D. (1996). Fraud and trust in science. Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine, 39(2), 248–269.
23. Morrison, R. S. (1990). Disreputable science: Definition and detection. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
15(8), 911–913.
24. Davis, M. S., & Riske, M. L. (2002). Preventing scientific misconduct: Insights from convicted
offenders. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of
the first ORI research conference on research integrity. Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity
25. Fox, M. F., & Braxton, J. M. (1994). Misconduct and social control in science: Issues, problems,
solution. Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 373–383.
26. James, N., Burrage, J., & Smith, B. (2003). Scientific integrity: A review of The Institute of Med-
icine’s (IOM) reports. Nursing Outlook, 51(5), 239–241.
27. Hansen, B. C., & Hansen, K. D. (1995). Academic and scientific misconduct: Issues for nursing
educators. Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(1), 31–39.
28. Fletcher, S. W., & Fletcher, R. H. (1994). Publish wisely or perish: Quality rather than quantity in
medical writing. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 23(6), 799–800.
29. Jefferson, T. (1998). Redundant publication in biomedical sciences: Scientific misconduct or
necessity? Science and Engineering Ethics, 4(2), 135–140.
30. Lynch, A. (1994). Ethics in dental research. Publication of research: The ethical dimension. Journal
of Dental Research, 73(11), 1778–1782.
31. Smith, M. M. (1992). Chiropractic research: The ethics. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological
Therapeutics, 15(8), 536–541.
32. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(4),
403–416.
33. Holaday, M., & Yost, T. E. (1995). A preliminary investigation of ethical problems in publication and
research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(2), 281–291.
34. Mojon-Azzi, S. M., & Mojon, D. S. (2004). Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data
fabrication. Ophthalmic Research, 36(1), 1–3.
35. Dale, J. A., Schmitt, C. M., & Crosby, L. A. (1999). Misrepresentation of research criteria by
orthopaedic residency applicants. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 81(12),
1679–1681.
36. Frankel, M. S. (1994). Ethics in research: Current issues for dental researchers and their professional
society. Journal of Dental Research, 73(11), 1759–1765.
37. Hernon, P., & Altman, E. (1995). Misconduct in academic research: its implications for the service
quality provided by university libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 21(1), 27–37.
38. Wocial, L. D. (1995). The role of mentors in promoting integrity and preventing scientific mis-
conduct in nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(5), 276–280.
39. Illingworth, R. (2004). Fraud and other misconduct in biomedical research. British Journal of
Neurosurgery, 18(4), 325–327.
40. Meyer, III, W. M. & Bernier, Jr., G. M. (2002). Potential cultural factors in scientific misconduct
allegations. In N. H. Steneck & M. D. Scheetz (Eds.), Investigating research integrity: Proceedings of
the first ORI research conference on research integrity. Rockville, MD: Office of Research Integrity.
41. Jones, A. H. (2003). Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for
scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 243–256.
42. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998a). Part I: Methods of collecting and analyzing empirical
materials. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative methods
(pp. 35–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
43. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
45. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: CA: Sage
Publications.
46. von Eckartsberg, R. (1996). Existential-phenomenological research. In E. von Eckartsberg (Ed.),
Phenomenological inquiry in psychology: Existential and transpersonal dimensions (pp. 3–61). New
York: Plenum Press.

123
414 M. S. Davis et al.

47. Webster’s II New College Dictionary (1986). New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
48. Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 12(1), 87–110.
49. Trochim, W. (1993). Reliability of concept mapping. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
the American Evaluation Association, Dallas, Texas.
50. Trochim, W. (1989). Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art? Evaluation and Program Planning,
12(1), 1–16.
51. Davis, J. E. (1989). Construct validity in measurement: A pattern matching approach. Evaluation and
Program Planning, 12(1), 31–36.
52. Marquart, J. M. (1989). A pattern matching approach to assess the construct validity of an evaluation
measurement. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 37–43.
53. Linton, R. (1989). Conceptualizing feminism: Clarifying social concepts. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 12(1), 25–30.
54. Shern, D. L., Trochim, W. K., & LaComb, C. A. (1995). The use of concept mapping for assessing
fidelity of model transfer: An example from psychiatric rehabilitation. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 18(2), 143–153.
55. Mannes, M. (1989). Using concept mapping for planning the implementation of a social technology.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(1), 67–74.
56. Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., & Berry, S. (1997). The ethics of scientific research: An
analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative
Medicine, 45(6), 371–380.
57. SPSS, I. (2004). SPSS 13.0 for windows. http://www.spss.com
58. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American
Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.
59. Heitman, E., & Bulger, R. E. (2005). Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct
of research for core content. Accountability in Research, 12(3), 207–224.

123
View publication stats